Topics Philosophy

Question Is philosophy like art? Is it a personal journey, where the philosopher finds a gnawing within themselves and seeks to unravel it using words and ideas? And the papers and articles they produce are artefacts of the journey - like stone markers they travel past on their way to somewhere? Or is philosophy like engineering? The papers produced are like buildings, constructed using the materials of ideas and theories and the tools of logic and thought. The philosopher is more like an architect - working out what goes where and how it fits together to make something worthwhile.

Accepted:
November 18, 2005

Comments

I think that both the analogy to art and the analogy to engineering are good ones for philosophy. Different philosophers are motivated by different concerns. I would put Nietzsche on the "art side" and Kant on the "engineering side." Even so, Kant or anyone on the "engineering side" may be motivated in part by the gnawing that you mention. So, the two approaches need not be mutually exclusive.

Architecture is traditionally thought of as a form of art, and architects (at least many of them) are often considered artists. This suggests further reason to think that the two approaches you describe may go hand in hand.

But I think there's a myth about art embedded in your question. While some art is a matter of a personal journey and the product of 'an inner gnawing', much art--even some great art--has little to do with the artist's own life journey or deepest psychology. Consider, for example, all the great visual art that has been done on commission for patrons, the immense amount of traditional folk art that does not seem to stem from 'inner gnawing', and the vast amount of art that is produced by groups rather than individuals (e.g., cathedrals, the majority of films, most theatrical and dance performances). Artmaking itself--like philosophy--is motivated by a variety of concerns.